Talk:List of string quartets by Sergei Taneyev

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

== Merge? No. ==

System recommends merging with Sergei Taneyev article. Not the purpose of this list, which augments the string quartet page. --dcnicholls 03:59, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, a list of works on the Taneyev page might be a good idea (I'm biased, I've started some for e.g. Rubbra and esp. Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji) especially now that the hardly-heard 1st and 3rd symphonies are just beginning to come out of hiding as it were. And I see where '11' comes from (this differs from Mr. Morton's list with the presence of qt. 6. I'm still not sure if the 1874 D minor really differs from the later quartet #3, also in two movements, but it probably does. The work I really want to hear is quartet #4, btw. 8 and 9 in the Melodiia/Olympia rec. I mentioned were in C (1882-3) and in A (1883) or the other way around, that is, earlier works than nos. 1-6 and the fragmentary?? C minor. The quartet page links to the Taneyev page anyway and would then link to this list on it. Schissel : bowl listen 04:08, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

I just took a look at Grove online at Taneyev's works, and the string quartets are just the tip of the iceberg. I'd agree with a merge if someone has the time to extract the complete works list, that way the list wouldn't bias the information provided. --dcnicholls 05:56, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I recommended the merge originally and I am reinstating that recommendation. This list is too short to justify its own article, and there is nothing that will ever link to it except the main article. A merge is justified. Kelly Martin 04:34, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Kelly,

The reason why I created the Sergei Taneyev string quartets as a separate page is that it relates principally to the string quartet page, which is becoming a major compendium of data on the many string quartets and their composers. As such it is getting very large, and Schissel thinks that page itself is getting too long - I'm inclined to agree.

The purpose of the Sergei Taneyev string quartets page - as a separate page - was to include string quartet-specific information for the string quartet page without adding to the bloat. Merging it with the Sergei Taneyev page would confuse the original purpose, and I have not collected information on Taneyev's other compositions, so a merge would distort the Taneyev page's information content.

I really do think - for the moment - that separate pages is the way to go. --dcnicholls 05:27, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

On reading the Wikipedia page on merging articles, I couldn't see any specific reference to coalescing pages that don't contain duplicate information - such as the two in question. The process is more aimed at avoiding duplication. It's clear there will be benefit under some circumstances to combining pages that don't share content, but, as with all web-based information, there are also situations where keeping information separate has benefit. In this case I think merging is not appropriate. --dcnicholls 07:03, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I think there are two ways to go here.

1) We have a precedent set for having separate works lists for composers where the works lists are long (e.g. List of works by Beethoven). We could make the list of string quartets by Sergei Taneyev into a List of works by Sergei Taneyev or List of compositions by Sergei Taneyev (caution: we haven't made the naming convention consistent for these lists yet). There are a few works lists, for example List of chorale harmonisations by Johann Sebastian Bach, which are subsets of the entire works lists, but the only ones I know about are really long lists (e.g. Bach harmonized many hundreds of chorales).

2) We also have a precedent set for keeping works lists in with the articles on the composers, especially when they are selective or incomplete (e.g. Igor Stravinsky is done this way).

Looking at the online Grove list for Taneyev, it seems that a separate list, liked from the Taneyev article, is better just because of the sheer length of the list--he was a fairly prolific composer. The list needn't be complete right away: fill out the chamber music section first. You can still link it from the string quartet page, using the # subsection HTML bit. However, if you all would rather put the long list in the Taneyev article -- the biographical portion of which, by the way, needs to be fattened up -- that's fine with me. We have both precedents available on Wikipedia for reference. Hope this helps! Antandrus (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I think a separate page covering his complete works is a good compromise. While I have access to Grove online (for a month or two yet), I'll try and bulid a full list of his works. When that's done, I'll add it to the new page, along with the existing string quartets information. --dcnicholls 15:09, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Hrm. I believe the list of quartets on the String quartet page should itself be split off, with a few 'major' quartets (subjectively-said) there, the rest of the page expanded, and the list of quartets expanded to a separate page; neither Taneyev's quartets nor those of (say) Villa-Lobos or other prolific (but sub-Haydn in number, who also was important in the development of the medium to say the very very least) composers really need to be split to a separate page- I'm not sure Taneyev's works as a whole need to, though this could be a good thing. No need for a separate link from String quartet (or List of string quartets after the manner of List of compositions for piano and orchestra) to such a page since Sergei Taneyev would already link there and be linked to from the former page.

That said, I agree that this list should be subsumed in a larger Taneyev worklist, whether on the main Taneyev biographical page or on a separate page - I'd "vote" for the former, absent compelling reason (e.g. presence of 600+ (joking about the number, it doesn't have to be so fixed) works, sufficient importance to the history of music- even lesser-known-hound-me accepts that as a factor yes- or others...) - or others besides of course. It's possible that one factor may be proportions of the page of course, in which case a brief biography and disproportionately large list should be split, I'm guessing, until someone can add to the former... Schissel : bowl listen 22:59, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

OK, how about the Willem Pijper page as a model? --dcnicholls 04:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

(Added a couple of categories, pages need categories) Looks good. Can't see where the permission would come from for the Taneev page but perhaps from a modern biographer (I've been too inconsistent about that I know, so pot-kettle... but was careful more recently e.g. with Sorabji and need to try to backtrack now, I think.) Schissel : bowl listen 04:24, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Well, ok, the Willem Pijper page also needs serious wikilinking/wikifying (e.g. opening paragiraffe similar to other composer-bios, etc.) Rest of statement stands. Unfortunate that only an nl:interwiki seems to exist far-as-I-can-tell Schissel : bowl listen 04:34, May 25, 2005 (UTC)